The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public Value - Sciendo
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
10.2478/nispa-2021-0011
The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality
Management in Creating Public Value
Rauno Vinni1
Abstract
One of the most fashionable management concepts currently is Design Thinking
(DT). DT is sometimes advertised as the creative and innovative method for han-
dling wicked problems. The explosion of DT in the public sector resembles the fast
adoption of Total Quality Management (TQM) a few decades ago. At first sight, DT
and TQM appear mutually exclusive – the former emphasizes inventiveness, which
is cherished in modern governance, while the latter stresses mechanistic solutions
and seems obsolete. Yet, public managers need a clearer understanding of DT and
TQM and how they relate to each other. The main aim of this paper is two ana-
lyze when public managers should employ DT and when they should use TQM
in creating public value. The article compares DT and TQM and finds that they
are surprisingly similar. For example, they share core values like user-centeredness,
stakeholder commitment, cooperation, etc. That is not to say that DT and TQM are
the same, for instance their tools are different. Still, the paper argues that the two
management models could well be combined – e.g. DT could assist public managers
in finding new solutions to known problems and TQM could be used to institu-
tionalize change. This insight helps managers to make informed decisions when
choosing a mix of management methods that fits their purpose best.
Keywords:
Design thinking; total quality management; public management; public value.
1. Introduction
Public administrators are under endless pressure to achieve more with fewer re-
sources (Bason 2014). This potential conflict of goals appears to be a permanent
1 Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology,
Tallinn, Estonia.
285
Open Access. © 2021 Vinni Rauno, published by Sciendo.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
state for many public managers. Dealing with the tensions that stem from this vola-
tile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment requires openness,
flexibility, and adaptivity (van der Wal 2017). Design Thinking (DT) can be regard-
ed as the answer to the pressures of the “VUCA world” because design has the po-
tential to support change. DT has expanded beyond creating tangible artifacts into
constructing complex systems, turning designers into facilitators and co-creators
of new systems and services (Buehring and Bishop 2020). Within the managerial
realm, DT has been labeled as the best way to be creative and innovate (Johans-
son-Sköldberg et al. 2013). It is often described as a subjective and emotional alter-
native to the structured, bureaucratic logic characterizing many large organizations
(Carlgren et al. 2016). DT is currently heavily advertised in the public sector as a
response to the difficulties of providing public services (Allio 2014). Furthermore,
it is now used to shape and influence intricate human systems by focusing on inno-
vation as a social process (Liedtka et al. 2018) and engender a “new spirit” of policy
making (Kimbell and Bailey 2017).
DT arguably offers managers advanced tools and techniques. Several design
thinkers have gone so far as to advocate for the overthrow of traditional modes
of policy and governance in favor of this purportedly new and superior approach
to social problem solving (Clarke and Craft 2019). Bason (2014) says that there
appears to be an inherent clash between the logic of administrative organization
and the sensibilities of designers: government is analytical, rational, logical, and
uses deductive thinking, while design is about synthesis, emotions, intuition, and
uses inductive thinking. Some proponents of DT elaborate that designers balance
aspects such as feasibility and viability, creativity and constraints, analytical and
intuitive thinking (Carlgren et al. 2016). This praise calls for an analysis of DT in
the public sector.
The first research question of this article is whether DT is indeed conceptu-
ally exceptional. To answer that, DT and TQM are juxtaposed. The rhetoric of the
supremacy of DT and its invasion into the public sector resembles the fast adop-
tion of Total Quality Management (TQM) more than two decades ago (see Madsen
2020). At first sight, the two management philosophies seem totally distinct. DT is
often associated with creative arts (Di Russo 2016) and TQM with bureaucracy and
machine work (Hazlett and Hill 2000). Yet, both concepts originate from manufac-
turing and have roots in the rational problem-solving approach to management.
This paper argues that the principles of DT are not that original, DT and TQM
share several core values. This is far from saying that DT and TQM are the same; for
example, their tools and techniques differ. However, DT and TQM could be used
together. Public managers seeking to embed DT into their organization do not have
to entirely replace “old tools of governance”, despite the claims of some “true believ-
ers” of DT that this is necessary.
286The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
The second research question addresses the potential of DT in delivering pub-
lic value compared to TQM. As Barzelay (2019) argues, public management is for
creating public value, and effectuating public value involves firstly performing a
public organization’s enterprise functions, including program-delivery and man-
agement, and secondly problem-solving in organizations. The latter is about doing
the former better than would otherwise be the case. For Barzelay, public manage-
ment is a design-oriented professional discipline (ibid.).
On the other hand, DT could also be regarded as an “artsy” private sector
management fad that does not fit the realities of the public sector. This article claims
that notwithstanding its boundaries (e.g. simple approaches do not always help with
solving complex issues), DT has several virtues that are fresh to public organiza-
tions (e.g. tools of empathy, creativity, iteration, and experimentation) and match
the realities of the “VUCA world”. The challenge for public managers is how to find
the most suitable tools to do the job at hand. The paper argues that when there is
a need for creative and innovative solutions or when empathy and collaboration is
needed to achieve social outcomes, DT could be the manager’s first option. Also,
when choice, personalization, and flexibility is essential, DT should be the primary
managerial approach. If the operating environment is more stable and predictable,
then planning, control, clear accountability, and transparency are key to delivering
public value. In this case, TQM has a lot to offer.
The paper is divided into six parts. Section 1 is the introduction. The following
two sections provide a literature review of the evolution, essence, methods, and cri-
tique of DT and TQM. This systematic overview is used as an input for comparing
the two management ideas in the fourth part of the paper. The resemblances and
variances are analyzed using general evaluation criteria established by the author.
Section 5 addresses the question of how DT and TQM influence the creation of
public value. The competing public values framework (CPVF) by Talbot (2008) is
used to examine the issue because the model is a practical display of public values.
CPVF contains the idea that managing public value is about elucidating paradoxes,
which is also an intrinsic aspiration of DT. The article concludes with insights for
public managers on using DT and TQM in public organizations in section 6.
2. Overview of design thinking
2.1 Evolution of the concept
There is no universally agreed definition of DT, but a short excursion into the his-
tory of DT may shed some light on the nature of the concept. Design theory and
practice has for a long time dealt with objects. Management scholars first showed an
interest in links between business and design in the mid-1980s (Johansson-Sköld-
berg et al. 2013). This phase is sometimes referred to as design management (DM),
that is the ongoing management – and leadership – of design organizations, design
287The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
processes, and designed outcomes (Cooper et al. 2009). The development of DM
and DT could be presented in three stages (Table 1).
Table 1
The progression of DM and DT (the author, based on Cooper et al. 2009)
Stage Drive Approach to design
1. DM in the DM deals with management issues Design adds value, which poses
context of that are directly related to the questions such as: What value and
manufacturing product development process at what development stage does
with the aim of succeeding in a design add to a manufactured
competitive market. good ? What is the role of the
designer in a product development
team ? How can this value be
measured ?
2. DM in the The product continues to be The focus is on a tangible product
context of mostly viewed as a good for sale, together with its accompanying
marketing and and its purpose is still to succeed services. Here the concept
branding in a competitive market. of service design took shape
initially. Design’s role is merely to
offer a service to the process of
manufacturing goods for sale.
3. DM in the Design activities are established DM changed its course from one
context of parts of an organization, either of designing as managing to one
organizations in manufacturing or in marketing of managing as designing. Design
and society and branding. thinking emerged as a practice
independent of the product. DT
focused on the characteristics of a
problem.
In short, the approach, once used in production, is now infusing corporate
culture (Kolko 2015) and can be applied to strategies, organizations, systems, ser-
vices, and policies (Bason 2010). Sanders and Stappers (2008) go on by saying that
design is about designing for the future experiences of people, communities and
cultures. Le Masson et al. (2013) propose no less than a new paradigm for contem-
porary societies – the design paradigm.
2.2 Ways of describing DT
DT involves the implementation of a design philosophy; it is a precursor to design
action (Chen 2019). Put otherwise, the essence of DT can be further clarified by
examining its principles and features, which are explained in Table 2.
288The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
Table 2
The features of DT based on two literature reviews
Principal attributes of DT Commonly cited characteristics of DT
(Micheli et al. 2018) (Di Russo 2016)
Creativity and innovation Optimistic, inventive, and innovative
User-centeredness and involvement Empathy, human-centered
Problem solving Wicked problems
Iteration and experimentation Iterative
Interdisciplinary collaboration Collaborative, multidisciplinary
Ability to visualize Visualization
Gestalt view* Ethnographic
Abductive, intuitive, problem-solution
Abductive reasoning**
framing
Tolerance of ambiguity and failure Fuzzy front end, rapid, prototyping
Blending rationality and intuition System thinking
*Gestalt view is an integrative approach that enables both the development of a deeper under-
standing of the problem context and the identification of relevant insights (Micheli et al. 2018).
**Abductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive thinking (from the general to the specific)
and inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general); it is the imagination of what might
be, rather than the analysis of what is; the abductive approach to problem solving is about either
relying on an existing frame or reframing and challenging existing practices and assumptions
(Micheli et al. 2018).
Table 3
Different ways of describing DT (Kimbell 2011)
DT as an
DT as a cognitive DT as a general
organizational
style theory of design
resource
Focus Individual designers, Design as a field or Businesses and other
especially experts discipline organizations in need
of innovation
Design’s Problem solving Taming wicked Innovation
purpose problems
Key concepts Design ability as a Design has no special Visualization,
form of intelligence; subject matter of its prototyping, empathy,
reflection-inaction, own integrative thinking,
abductive thinking abductive thinking
Nature Design problems Design problems are Organizational
of design are ill-structured, wicked problems problems are design
problems the problem and the problems
solution co-evolve
Sites of design Traditional design Four orders of design Any context from
expertise and discipline (signs, things, actions, healthcare to access to
activity and thoughts) clean water
289The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013) identified multiple approaches with differ-
ent meanings given to the concept of DT. According to them there are five “design-
erly” ways of DT: (1) creation of artefacts, (2) reflexive practice, (3) problem-solving
activity, (4) way of reasoning / making sense of things, (5) creation of meaning. In
addition, there are three approaches that fall under DT as a management discourse:
(1) the design company IDEO’s way of working with design and innovation, (2) a
way to approach indeterminate organizational problems, and a necessary skill for
practicing managers, (3) part of management theory. Kimbell (2011) summarizes
three main ways of describing DT that are summarized in Table 3.
The abundance of design interpretations demands further explanations of
how DT is put into practice and how it is employed in the public sector. These topics
are covered in the next sections.
2.3 Methods and tools of DT
Key elements of the DT methodology include early and frequent interaction with
customers, fast iterations, decision-making, optimization, agile process design with
less hierarchy, evaluation, and a learning-by-doing approach that involves building
prototypes of any kind as early as possible in the process (Le Masson et al. 2013;
Kupp et al. 2017).
Lindberg et al. (2010) say that there are two kinds of design process models:
(1) explanatory-theoretical representation of design activities (an abstract model);
(2) prescriptive statements on how to solve design problems (a practical model).
A typical abstract DT model consists of these steps: discover (understanding the
current situation), reframe (deep study of the current situation to understand it in
non-obvious ways), envision (exploring potential solutions), and create (designing
the future) (Mendel 2012). Practical models follow a similar logic. For example, a
renowned model of the “double diamond” developed by the British Design Council
(2015) consists of four stages:
1) Discover: insight into the solution;
2) Define: the area to focus upon;
3) Develop: potential solutions;
4) Deliver: solutions that work.
DT embraces a lot of hands-on techniques and tools that help designers to get
through the design process. Micheli et al. (2018) mapped the essential tools of DT.
These are ethnographic methods, personas, brainstorming, mind maps, visualization,
prototypes, journey maps, and field experiments. Additionally, Mulgan (2014) brings
out systems thinking because DT highlights the importance of seeing correlations
between different parts of the system and asking the right questions. Mintrom and
Luetjens (2016) use the term “DT strategies” and present a list of methods to use
290The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
in the context of public policies – environmental scanning, participant observation,
open-to-learning conversations, mapping, sensemaking – which can be combined to
strengthen the targeting, development, and implementation of policies.
2.4 DT in the public sector
Until recently, most of the professional advice on the designers’ part focused on
the micro- and meso-levels of governance: on developing physical artefacts (e.g.
buildings, public space) and later (digital) public services. Today, the scope of DT
in the public sector has been extended to cover policy-making on the macro-lev-
el of governance (Mintrom and Luetjens 2016). Part of the attraction of employ-
ing DT in the public sector is the hope that design will advance public innovation
(Mulgan 2014) and offer a different way of understanding policy problems, which
comes from its hybrid blend of research methods from other disciplines, such as an-
thropology, systems thinking, and data science, thereby engendering collaboration
between different parties and making policy tangible and graspable (Bason 2014;
Kimbell and Bailey 2017). The assumed benefits of DT compared to “traditional”
public administration are outlined in Table 4.
Table 4
The benefits of DT compared to traditional public administration (the author,
based on Allio 2014; Kimbell and Bailey 2017; Clarke and Craft 2019)
“Traditional” public administration Advantages of DT
“Closed” design processes, led by Designing for the fundamental needs of
government actors, with little attention to users and engaging citizens; “co”-modes
real needs of users, absence of engagement of doing, such as co-production and co-
delivery
Policy of program specific “silos”, lack of Joined-up innovation process,
joined-up thinking multidisciplinary teams; a comprehensive
problem perspective; integrated and better-
targeted solutions; reduced duplicated
efforts, policy inconsistencies or overlaps
Long-term pre-implementation planning Creativity and risk taking; regular iteration
processes and experimentation; low risk prototypes
that lead to innovative and inclusive
solutions; reducing the distance between
policy and implementation
Ambiguous and complex goals Better understanding of the “architecture”
of a problem; generating new ideas
Lack of tangibility Making problems tangible through direct
observation, visualization and prototypes;
enhanced synergies and better addressed
trade-offs
The positive impact of DT is of course not as straightforward as Table 4 might
imply. As Kimbell and Bailey (2017) suggest, the adoption of design practices into
291The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
policy settings has received mixed assessments. For example, design’s traditional fo-
cus on experiences and serendipitous creativity might neglect a deep understanding
of government systems and may be at odds with prevailing organizational cultures
and practices. These tensions lead us to the critique of DT in the next part.
2.5 The critique of DT
DT contains a fundamental paradox where, on the one hand, DT is supposed
to address wicked issues using out-of-the-box thinking, but on the other hand,
design thinkers and implementers apply a rational process of manageable stages
in order to reach a solution (see Dorst 2006). While there is no doubt that each
design problem-solving consists of a certain sequence of process steps, the ques-
tion would be how predictable, and thus, how determinable those sequences are
(Lindberg et al. 2010).
Table 5
Main problems with using DT in the public sector
“Traditional” public Barriers of DT in the
DT
administration public sector
Design synthesizes the Relies on rational and logical Values and culture of DT
emotional and the intuitive analysis and uses deductive and “traditional” public
using inductive reasoning and thorough thinking administration are in
and thinking from multiple to come up with elegant conflict.
disciplines to create value solutions, often influenced
(Bason 2014). by a single discipline like law
or economics (Bason 2014).
Political context complicates Design’s traditional
simplistic applications of focus on experiences
strict “user centrism” as and serendipitous
derived from private sector creativity neglects a
experiences (Clarke and deep understanding of
Craft 2019). government systems and
practices (Kimbell and Bailey
2017).
The ability to give shape The political, ideological, It is questionable whether
to abstract concepts and and sometimes abstract designers can be equal
ideas is a core design nature of public policies partners in policy-making
skill (Bason 2014). Yet, makes them unfit for and vice versa – it is
as the complexity of the design practices which are sometimes argued that civil
design process increases, concerned with that which servants lack the skills and
a new hurdle arises: the is attractive, functional, values necessary to think
acceptance of “the designed and meaningful to people in and act as designers.
artifact” – whether product, practice (Bason 2014).
user experience, strategy,
or complex system – by
stakeholders (Brown and
Martin 2015).
292The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
Further arguments against DT are not surprising. Opponents say that DT is
poorly defined, and this creates confusion; the case for its use relies more on an-
ecdotes than data; it is little more than basic common sense, repackaged and then
marketed for a hefty consulting fee (Iskander 2018). Kupp et al. (2017) state that
the typical process of DT hardly ever works the way it is supposed to because of the
following challenges: organizations whose success is built on predictable operations
instinctively resist fuzzy and messy innovation processes; many established compa-
nies punish failure, which discourages the risk-taking that DT requires; DT teams
need a lot of autonomy to function well. If these difficulties persist in the private
sector, they could be even more grave in public organizations. Table 5 summarizes
barriers to using DT in the public sector.
One can respond to the critique by saying that managing tensions is an in-
trinsic part of DT. For example, Dorst (2015) suggests that DT contains a process of
thinking around the paradox rather than confronting it head-on. The solution is not
within the core paradox itself, but in the broad area of contextual values and themes
surrounding the paradox. So, the core activity of a designer is to create frames, i.e.
standpoints from which a problem can be solved, and then concentrate on under-
standing what is at play in the broadened problem arena (Dorst 2015). Then again,
there is no assurance that the creation of alternative frames helps to redefine a prob-
lem and find a solution that works.
3. Overview of total quality management
3.1 Evolution of the concept
Like design, quality is a vague concept that lies in the eye of the beholder (van Ke-
menade and Hardjono 2019). It could be viewed as something excellent; it could
represent value to somebody; it could be defined as conformance to specifications;
or it could be regarded as a bargain that meets or exceeds customer’s expectations
(Reeves and Bednar 1994). Four fairly discrete stages can be identified in the evo-
lution of quality management (QM): inspection, quality control, quality assurance,
and TQM. The first two stages are based on detection and treatment, while the latter
two are based on problem prevention (van der Wiele et al. 1997).
Although many management scholars consider TQM to be a management fad
of the 1980s and 1990s that has now passed, there are those who think that TQM is
still alive (see Sabet et al. 2016; Madsen 2020) and now at a more mature stage where
focuses have shifted from being initially on TQM to the tools, techniques, and core
values which are needed to implement QM and build a quality and business excel-
lence culture (Dahlgaard-Park et al. 2013). Efforts for the further development of
QM encompass “perceived quality”, “human-focused QM”, and “intelligent QM”
(Weckenmann et al. 2015). Some experts even argue that TQM is approaching, if
293The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
not merging, innovation management (Lilja et al. 2017). In this paper, the term
“TQM” is used throughout because it is widely used as a roof concept to denote
various QM principles and practice.
3.2 Ways of describing TQM
As there is no universally agreed definition of TQM, numerous lists of its key ele-
ments have been proposed. Three examples are provided in Table 6.
Table 6
The features of TQM based on literature reviews
Quality 4.0: eight key
Top ten TQM critical
TQM core principles ingredients of managing
success factors
(Dahlgaard-Park 2011) quality in the Industry
(Aquilani et al. 2017)
4.0 era (Sony et al. 2020)
Leadership / top management Strong management com- Top management support
commitment / role of top mitment / leadership / strate- for
management gically based Quality 4.0
Customer focus / satisfaction Focus on Leadership in quality
customers / customer-driven
organization
Training and education Focus on learning & Training in Quality 4.0
innovation / training and
education
Measurement or metric Actions based on Handling big data
systems / data information facts / scientific approach Improving prescriptive
and analysis / quality data analytics
and reporting
Supplier collaboration / man- Building partnerships Using Quality 4.0 for
agement / supplier quality between suppliers, effective
(management) customers, and society vertical, horizontal and end-
to-end integration
Process quality management Focus on processes
Continuous improvement Continuous improvement
TQM as a strategic Total involvement / total Using Quality 4.0 for
issue / planning / role of commitment / total strategic advantage
quality department responsibilities
Employee commitment and Focus on employees / team-
attitude / involvement work / motivation / empower-
ment
Organizational Systematic Organizational culture for
culture / quality approach / building a TQM Quality 4.0
culture / organizational culture
climate / learning
Another way to rationalize TQM is to say that a range of “soft”, “hard”, and
“mixed” approaches to TQM can be differentiated (Hill 1995). “Soft” TQM empha-
sizes customer awareness and the duty of employees to take responsibility for qual-
294The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
ity. Employee motivation is crucial for successful customer care because employees
are empowered to deliver quality to internal and external customers. “Hard” TQM
uses the traditional techniques of quality control and assurance and corresponds to
the “management by fact”. “Mixed” forms combine the two approaches (ibid.). Table
7 divides different forms of TQM to these three broad categories.
Table 7
Different ways of describing TQM
Approach Form of TQM
TQM as quality management is about managing quality in mass
production settings using statistical tools (e.g. control charts, flowcharts,
Statistical Process Control, etc.) for improving processes, although it goes
beyond mere tools by incorporating issues of quality control to managerial
functions, e.g. strategic planning and involving workforce (Yong and
Wilkinson 2001).
“Hard”
TQM TQM as systems management is based on the use of systems and
procedures for controlling quality. Quality systems entail having the
organizational structure, responsibilities, documented procedures and work
instructions, processes, and resources for implementing QM so that there is
a guiding framework to ensure that every time a process is performed the
same information, methods, skills, and controls are used and practiced in a
consistent manner (Yong and Wilkinson 2001).
TQM as people management is focused on the more qualitative aspects,
such as greater customer orientation, employee involvement, team-working,
“Soft” and generally better management of employees. Much significance is placed
TQM on education and training, communication, and involvement of all employees
in the decision-making process that should lead to the mind shift that quality
is everybody’s responsibility (Yong and Wilkinson 2001).
TQM as re-engineering is about building “discontinuity” into the system
by radically rethinking and redesigning processes to achieve improvements
(Yong and Wilkinson 2001). Rather than taking processes as given, they
should be overturned, taking the customer’s rather than management
“Mixed” control perspective.
TQM
TQM as a new management paradigm states that it is the overall quality
of management that leads to better performance. There are several ways to
achieve higher quality of management, among which national quality awards
represent one option (Yong and Wilkinson 2001).
3.3 Methods and tools of TQM
Hellsten and Klefsjo (2000) argued that TQM contains the three interdependent
components of core values, tools, and techniques. Examples of TQM’s techniques
are quality circles, quality function deployment, benchmarking, employee develop-
ment, supplier partnership, process management, self-assessment, design of exper-
iment (ibid.). Tools of TQM are, for instance, relation diagrams, factorial design,
Ishikawa diagrams, control charts, ISO 9000, process maps, tree diagrams, criteria
of quality awards (although the latter are often treated separately as frameworks or
295The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
models) (Dahlgaard-Park et al. 2013). Van Kemenade and Hardjono (2019) add in-
struments that are more in line with current understandings of TQM, e.g. reflexive
tools (like second opinion, intervision, time-out, discussion stories, inner conver-
sations, shadowing, modeling, peer review, Six Sigma) and systems management
methods that help to make sense of chaos (for instance, context analysis, quality
circles, Lean, appreciative inquiry, Socratic café). The extensive catalogue of meth-
ods demonstrates that the TQM toolbox has been expanding over time. It almost
seems that every popular management instrument could be treated a part of TQM.
3.4 TQM in the public sector
It is argued that adopting quality principles might resolve difficulties that public
organizations face easier and allow them to operate with lower cost and less effort
(Tomaževič et al. 2014). Even so, Swiss (1992) argues that the orthodox (i.e. hard)
TQM is strikingly ill-suited to the government environment, the major problems
being its insufficient modification for services since service provision is usually
more difficult to manage than manufacturing products, difficulties with defining
customers, inappropriate emphasis on inputs and processes, which creates prob-
lems of measurement. Hazlett and Hill’s (2000) study showed that the characteristics
obstructing TQM in the public sector are the following: public sector culture, lack
of clear customer focus, too many procedures, people working in divisional “silos”,
too many targets, lack of awareness of a strategic direction, the general belief that
staff are overworked and underpaid, domination by stakeholders. Therefore Swiss
(1992) proposed that a “reformed” TQM that emphasizes client feedback, perfor-
mance monitoring, continuous improvement, and worker participation could be
suited to public organizations. Fryer et al. (2007) elaborate that the most important
success factor of TQM in the public sector is the management commitment.
Various QM methods and tools are now widespread in public organizations,
e.g. service standards, management systems based on ISO 9000 series standards,
“excellence” or benchmarking models, such as Common Assessment Frameworks
(CAF), quality award programs and so on (see, for instance, how QM developed
in Czechia in Špaček 2018 and examples of QM instruments in use in Špalková et
al. 2015). A widening from quality of products and processes to quality of services,
quality of life, and quality of the environment has taken place, and the challenge is
to adjust and modify the QM framework while endlessly developing better tools
and techniques in order to fit with the needs of new service and knowledge in-
tensified organizations (Dahlgaard-Park et al. 2013). Raja Sreedharan, Raju, and
Srivatsa Srinivas (2017) say that there is a need for process improvements in new
governance settings, though quality principles need to be properly modified in dif-
ferent government departments like education, administration, etc. depending on
the environment of each of these divisions to ensure that multiple, contradicting
factors are taken into account as this area is somewhat sensitive.
296The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
3.5 The critique of TQM
Apart from the discussion on TQM’s suitability for public agencies, there has been
a lively discussion about the downsides of TQM as such. One of the most seri-
ous objections to TQM is that it creates mechanistic solutions (Godfroij 1995) and
increases bureaucracy (Hill and Wilkinson 1995). Dahlgaard-Park (2011) brings
out three lines of criticism. First, the failure rate of TQM implementation is high,
although it is frequently not clear whether the organizations which experienced
failure really adopted TQM or not. The second criticized aspect of TQM concerns
its position as a general management theory: there is no consensus on TQM ter-
minology and definitions and its main tenets are not all unique to TQM, but they
are also part of other organizational change initiatives or generally accepted “good”
management practices; organizational contingencies are not recognized, organiza-
tional informal aspects, such as power and politics, are either completely forgotten
or viewed as having little importance. Third, TQM is strong on the implementation
aspect but weak on content (ibid.)
4. Comparison of DT and TQM
The rhetoric of the proponents of TQM back in the 1980s and 1990s is comparable
to the practitioner-advocates of DT in that the adoption of the respective manage-
ment methods allegedly provides a quick fix to the problems (public) managers are
facing. But the sales stories are not the only features DT and TQM share. The paral-
lels and variances of these management concepts are discussed in Table 8.
The comparison shows that there are no fundamental differences in the scope,
core principles and role of the main participants of DT and TQM. Divergences appear
in practice. Designers use various tools that are (or used to be) unfamiliar to other dis-
ciplines. But as Dorst (2011) suggests, many of the activities that designers do are uni-
versal, and thus, it would be inappropriate to claim that these are exclusive to design.
That is, there are no barriers to using methods of DT (e.g. personas or user journeys,
etc.) in organizations that rely on TQM, and vice versa – DT can use tools (for exam-
ple data analysis) inherent in TQM. This is possible because the core philosophy of
the two management ideologies is wide-ranging and analogous, even more so because
both TQM and DT are developing towards becoming general management concepts.
This is not to say that DT and TQM are the same. Obviously, DT does not
resemble the “hard” version of TQM, which sees QM as the use of statistical tools to
control processes and standardize end products. DT also differs from a conception
of TQM as a systems management that relies on a control framework through doc-
umented processes and work instructions, clear structure and responsibilities, etc.
In brief, it is apparent that “soft” versions of TQM are more related to DT and “hard”
versions of TQM have less in common with DT. But in which situations could DT
and / or TQM be most valuable ?
297298
Table 8
A comparison of DT and TQM
Criteria for
DT TQM
comparison
Evolution From manufacturing via service development and general Similar path of development.
management to public management and policy making.
Scope of DT applies to micro-, meso- and macro-levels of governance TQM concerns all levels of governance. Micro-quality applies
application much in the same way as TQM. However, the effect of DT on to the relationships within an organization. The purpose is to
macro-level governance is more direct compared to TQM, as DT improve the organization’s performance. Meso-quality deals with
is increasingly used in policy making. the relationship between supply and demand, or provider and
user. The aim is to increase the external quality of the service
paying more attention to those on the demand side. Macro-
quality applies to the relationship between a public service and
the citizenry. The concern is the improvement of the quality of
life in society. Yet, the impact that TQM has on macro-quality is
indirect in the form of reinforcing effects upon the relationship
between people and government (Vinni 2007).
DT relies on the general understanding of the problem, including TQM states that quality is “strategic”. Quality is a result of
customers’ needs, the end-user’s environment, social factors, managing systems, not just discrete products, services, or
market adjacencies, and emerging trends (Micheli et al. 2018). organizational units. Hence, the word “total”.
Despite the claim that it takes the “gestalt view” (i.e. the whole
is more than the mere sum of its individual parts), DT often
remains a project- or problem-based approach to solving specific
problems.
The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021Core Human-centeredness is the starting point of DT. User-orientation is central to managerial efforts in TQM, the
principles needs of clients are at the core of most quality definitions.
DT popularizes the idea of experimenting and the technique Prevention is deeply rooted in TQM, which is akin to prototyping
of prototyping. DT takes a step further from TQM’s continuous in DT. TQM relies more on step-by-step improvements throughout
improvement and states that out-of-the-box thinking, risk-taking, the product or service cycle. It should be noted, however, that
and radical solutions are often needed instead of incremental TQM as re-engineering applauds radical change.
change.
Iteration is essential to DT. It is vital to allow mistakes, which in Learning from errors to detect root causes of problems is at
turn assumes a culture that is tolerant of failure. the heart of TQM as well. This needs a culture that avoids
punishment for making mistakes.
DT specifically emphasizes creativity but agrees that intuition Although some experts try to combine modern TQM and
should be blended with rationality. innovation management, creativity is not among the main
characteristics of TQM, at least not in the “hard” versions of it.
Role of top Modern DT is about managing as designing. Yet, DT does not TQM is explicit in emphasizing the need for clear leadership
management overtly state that top managers must be part of design teams, and top management commitment (e.g. by providing resources
although it is common sense that leaders support innovation (see necessary for employees to do their jobs well) to drive TQM
Bason and Austin 2019). values and practices.
Role of In DT, there are two schools of thought: the first believes that TQM clearly stresses employee commitment and involvement
employees everybody can design and the other stresses that “true” design across organizational functions. TQM underlines that “culture of
is a domain of professional designers who take the lead in design quality” must be built into processes and rooted in values of an
projects. The latter understanding differs from TQM. organization by means of training and education of all personnel.
Relationships DT stresses co-design which is about “deep” collaboration with Quality emerges from collaboration with stakeholders –
with various participants throughout a design project. DT prioritizes customers, suppliers, and even society at large (e.g. quality
stakeholders interdisciplinary teams to encourage creativity and ensure that award models contain the criteria related to social responsibility).
the outcome is sustainable thanks to having various views
present from the start.
Importance of DT values gathering / analyzing both qualitative and quantitative Measurement and feedback in TQM are a precondition for
measurement data to run iterations and develop improved solutions. learning and continuous improvement, both quantitative and
qualitative analysis methods are used.
Toolbox DT exploits a wide range of instruments that are aimed at The TQM toolbox is full of “hard” tools of management, but
solving problems, but the same could be said about TQM. “soft” tools are also appreciated. Many concrete models (e.g.
There are also some shared tools (e.g. brainstorming tools, quality award models, ISO 9000 series management systems),
information visualization). Still, DT relies relatively more on tools techniques (Six Sigma or Lean), and tools (seven “old” and seven
of qualitative analysis (though it naturally encourages the use of “new” tools of QM) are different from DT’s instruments.
quantitative data where appropriate).
299
The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
5. The contribution of TQM and DT in creating public value
Junginger (2018) argues that DT’s focus on human interaction promotes innova-
tion, integrates public organizations in a new way, and directly contributes to the
creation of public value. But exactly how does DT, compared to TQM, influence
public value creation ? This could be analyzed using the competing public values
framework (CPVF) by Talbot (2008). CPVF covers diverse goals that a public man-
ager must consider and harmonizes five competing dimensions of public value: (1)
trust and legitimacy; (2) collectivity; (3) security; (4) personal utility; and (5) auton-
omy (Talbot 2008) (see Table 9).
Table 9
Competing public values in relation to DT and TQM
Competing
Which management
public values How does DT How does TQM
idea works
and their key influence public influence public
better for public
elements values ? values ?
managers ?
(Talbot 2008)
COLLECTIVITY: DT values collectivity, TQM is a universal If collectivity and
• Social its characteristics concept that does collaboration is the
outcomes include co-design, not differentiate primary concern for
• Co-production empathy, optimism, between (groups of) public managers,
• Social capital collaboration, stakeholders. TQM DT could be the
and cohesion multidisciplinary, values partnerships answer due to in-built
• Partnerships ethnographic methods, and co-production methods and tools of
etc. Yet, the direct since quality is a cooperation.
Collaboration user is the focal point result of everyone
is at the core of design activities working together. While TQM also
of managerial while concerns of TQM does not aim stresses collaboration,
efforts in this other stakeholders at maximizing it might guide
value area. are subsidiary. Then social outcomes executives too much
again, many DT because often the into the direction of
experts stress that idea is to determine minimum standards,
nowadays design’s acceptable or even which is fine when in
most important task is minimum standards search of stability, but
to contribute to social and concentrate not when there is a
issues. on staying within need to come up with
defined parameters disruptive ideas.
at a minimal cost
(although supporters
of modern TQM
might argue that
it values social
outcomes as
manifested, for
example, in the
criteria of quality
award models).
300The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
AUTONOMY: DT emphasizes TQM values Taking TQM only
• Transparency consultation and accountability as a mechanistic
• Accountability participation. DT (responsibilities must approach that is the
• Consultation could provide public be precisely in place) opposite of innovation
and managers with fresh and consultation might point us in
participation methods of ideation with customers, as the wrong direction
• Innovation and creativity (Mulgan well as transparency (e.g. visualization,
2014) that support since procedures creativity-boosting,
Creativity innovation. must be clear and and problem-solving
is central to understandable to tools are in the arsenal
managerial However, the word everyone. of quality managers).
strategy in this “accountability” is not Nevertheless,
area of public in designers’ everyday Although proponents creativity is more
value. vocabulary (here of modern TQM try deeply rooted in DT
accountability to the to bind TQM and than in TQM, and in
public is meant, not innovation together, need of creative and
to the profession) creativity is not the novel solutions, DT
and the messy design primary concern of may be the preferred
process is not always quality managers. approach. TQM is
clear and transparent. beneficial in situations
where clear and
transparent action is
needed.
SECURITY: DT could be useful in TQM, especially TQM has more to offer
• Reliability and creating sustainable the “hard” versions to public managers in
resilience results, which is in of it, is to a great securing services that
• Service line with reliability extent about are reliable and meet
standards and resilience since institutionalizing the required standards
• Equity and due DT values developing the processes at (whether it be equity
process robust applications optimum levels of or efficiency) that
• Costs and via experimenting quality and cost to apply to all groups
efficiency and involvement of maintain control. in the same way. In
stakeholders from other words, TQM
Control is the the start. Costs and works well in internal
central feature efficiency are not the operations, stable
of managerial first concern of DT, environments, and
efforts in this although in the longer uniform interactions,
value area. term the idea is to while DT could be
offer value for money useful in developing a
through working out working solution in the
lasting solutions. first place.
301The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
Table 9
(continuation)
PERSONAL Personalization, One definition of When public managers
UTILITY: flexibility, and choice quality is that it need to maximize
• Choice are deeply rooted in is what the users competition,
• Personalization DT, because it aims define it to be, personalization,
and flexibility at maximizing the and hence, TQM and flexibility, DT
• Accessibility outcome for a specific stresses customer is a better option
• Relative user group. Individual orientation. – DT experts have
quality needs of users are Therefore, in developed practical
more important some contexts, tools (e.g. empathy
Competition than social cohesion relative quality is and / or experience
is at the heart (although many tolerated in TQM maps, etc.) that could
of managerial design thinkers would and personalization be of help to public
strategy in this probably disagree with is allowed. Despite managers in coping
value area. this argument). that, TQM works with the trend of
better in providing growing individuality
standardized in society. However,
products and in situations where
services. relative quality is
unavoidable, TQM does
not rule out endeavors
of flexibility and
competition.
TRUST AND Both DT and TQM contribute to building trust and legitimacy as
LEGITIMACY shown in the public value areas above. Furthermore, since trust
result from and legitimacy are ultimately assessed by the public (individually or
other values collectively) and the principle of human- or user-centricity is central
and stress the in both management concepts, it follows that confidence towards
need to balance the state should be a key concern for public managers in search of
all dimensions delivering public value applying either DT or TQM.
of CPVF to
uphold trust and
legitimacy of
governance.
Public managers must be acquainted with the ideas and methods of DT and
TQM if they want to succeed in the practice of public policy or management. It is
helpful to have a general understanding of which management concept is better
suited to which circumstances. Table 9 illustrates that in some instances (e.g. where
there is a need to get to the bottom of complex phenomena and / or develop new
services or revolutionary solutions to policy problems), DT could be of more use.
In some conditions (e.g. when there is a need to ensure that new solutions will be
institutionalized into steady routines to guarantee uniform outcomes), TQM works
well. But the key insight is that in many cases DT and TQM could be combined to
achieve public goals, i.e. they are not mutually exclusive.
Surely there are situations where contradictions emerge when applying DT
and TQM together – e.g. despite the similarities in basic principles, the strife for
302The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
efficiency and workflow standardization can be counterproductive to the DT-led
problem solving that aims to re-frame wicked problems and adapt to the ambigu-
ity. Yet, this paper argues that the tension could be alleviated. Gaim and Wåhlin
(2016) propose that it is possible to solve paradoxes in management by using design
that stresses finding creative solutions that reconcile dilemmas, instead of just being
forced to choose between option A or B. Dorst (2015) offers another practical point
for managers – DT techniques and methods should be adapted, not adopted. Adap-
tion means that core principles are transposed to other fields by practitioners ab-
stracting from everyday design practices and connecting these fundamentals with
the corresponding needs in the target field. Adoption is used when methods are
chosen and applied without substantial change or much thought (ibid.).
6. Conclusions
This paper maintains that DT is not a silver bullet in addressing problems of public
policy and management. DT is essentially a structured decision-making method
which is relatively similar to the ideas of TQM, particularly to the “soft” and con-
temporary versions of it (e.g. TQM as a management paradigm). This may be good
news for public management theorists and practitioners alike, because public sector
organizations that have experience with QM may find that DT principles are not
at odds with TQM. This could also help overcome the disadvantage of DT that it is
often associated with arts and fashion, giving rise to skepticism in applying “artsy”
ways to serious matters like health or education or social services. The article claims
that DT promotes ideas that are valuable to modern public organizations, e.g. em-
pathy, creativity, iteration, and experimentation. In a “VUCA world”, the guiding
role of (organizational) values is even greater than before. Since the core principles
of DT and TQM are similar, public managers can apply them in parallel to achieve
better outcomes in delivering public value.
For the enthusiasts of using DT in the public sector, a reminder that DT has its
limits is appropriate. The key promise of advocates of DT is that it provides actual
help in dealing with the wicked issues of public policy. However, the main critique
of DT is that design itself is ill-equipped for solving the paradoxical situations where
opposing views have to be unified. In other words, there is no guarantee that DT
can yield solutions to complex problems – design is often reduced to simple reci-
pes of innovation, but unpretentious methods often cannot unravel multifaceted
social matters. Indeed, design thinkers suggest that creative solutions that draw on
multiple perspectives can help to reconcile this inconsistency (see Gaim and Wåh-
lin 2016), but some tensions will probably remain. On the other hand, managing
paradoxes in delivering results is a normal state of affairs for public managers, as
established in the concept of CPVF (Talbot 2008).
303The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Summer 2021
For practitioners, DT’s value for public management might lie in putting peo-
ple, not experts, at the center of development. Additionally, public managers might
be attracted by the promise of DT that it could be used to develop ideas into solu-
tions faster than public organizations are accustomed to. DT asks managers to look
at the subject through various lenses, e.g. using knowledge from various fields af-
fecting the problem. Therefore, engagement of various stakeholders, not just relying
on professional designers, is essential in design projects (see also Mulgan 2014).
TQM could prove useful in institutionalizing the (innovative) solutions that were
created using DT approaches. In brief, when choosing the managerial method that
fits the problem at hand, public managers should bear the following in mind:
• when there is a need for creative and innovative solutions and when empathy
and collaboration are needed to achieve social outcomes, DT could be the man-
ager’s first choice;
• where detailed planning, control, clear accountability, and transparency is the
key to delivering public value, TQM has more to offer;
• when competition is required to spur choice, personalization, and flexibility, DT
should be the primary managerial option;
• when issues of trust and legitimacy are the main concern, both managerial ap-
proaches are helpful. DT and TQM could be applied jointly to create public val-
ue in a balanced manner.
This article dealt with the issue of contextualizing the utilization of manage-
ment methods, taking into consideration the value proposition that a public organi-
zation pursues. Yet, variables beyond the purpose of public managers may influence
the “right” mix of management instruments. For example, the degree of organi-
zational publicness (see Antonsen and Jorgensen 1997) might be of importance.
Publicness is organizational attachment to public sector values: for example, due
process, accountability, and welfare provision. Organizations with a high degree
of publicness are characterized by complex tasks, professional orientation, many
external stakeholders, conflicting environmental demands, and low managerial au-
tonomy. The latter are the opposite (ibid.). It follows that organizations with a low
degree of publicness lend themselves more readily to managerial ideas. Organiza-
tions with a high degree of publicness find it harder to accommodate managerial
interventions (Vinni 2007). In short, publicness is an example of a concept that
presents opportunities for further research on how to contextualize the use of DT
and TQM in CEE public management.
304The Potential of Design Thinking and Total Quality Management in Creating Public…
References
Allio, L. 2014. Design Thinking for Public Service Excellence. Singapore: Global Cen-
tre for Public Service Excellence, United Nations Development Programme.
Available at https://www.undp.org/content/dam/uspc/docs/GPCSE_De-
sign%20Thinking.pdf (last accessed 4 April 2021).
Antonsen, M. and T. B. Jorgensen. 1997. “The ‘Publicness’ of Public Organizations.”
Public Administration 75 (Summer), 337 – 357.
Aquilani, B., A. Silvestri, A. Ruggieri and C. Gatti. 2017. “A Systematic Literature
Review on Total Quality Management Critical Success Factors and the Iden-
tification of New Avenues of Research.” TQM Journal 29(1), 184 – 213.
Barzelay, M. 2019. Public Management as a Design-Oriented Professional Discipline.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Available at https://doi.
org/10.4337/9781788119108 (last accessed 4 April 2021).
Bason, C. 2010. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-Creating for a Better Society.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Bason, C. 2014. “Introduction: The Design for Policy Nexus.” In C. Bason (ed.).
Design for Policy. Surrey, UK: Gower Publishing, 1 – 8.
Bason, C. and R. D. Austin. 2019. “The Right Way to Lead Design Thinking.” Har-
vard Business Review 97(2), 82 – 91.
British Design Council. 2015. The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond ?
Available at https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-pro-
cess-what-double-diamond (last accessed 4 April 2021).
Brown, T. and R. Martin. 2015. “Design for Action: How to Use Design Thinking to
Make Great Things Actually Happen.” Harvard Business Review 93(9), 57 – 64.
Buehring, J. and P. C. Bishop. 2020. “Foresight and Design: New Support for Strate-
gic Decision Making.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innova-
tion 6(3), 408 – 432.
Carlgren, L., M. Elmquist and I. Rauth. 2016. “Exploring the Use of Design Think-
ing in Large Organizations: Towards a Research Agenda.” Swedish Design Re-
search Journal 1, 23 – 32.
Chen, S. 2019. The Design Imperative: The Art and Science of Design Management.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clarke, A. and J. Craft. 2019. “The Twin Faces of Public Sector Design.” Governance
32, 5 – 21.
Cooper, R., S. Junginger and T. Lockwood. 2009. “Design Thinking and Design
Management: A Research and Practice Perspective.” Design Management Re-
view 20(2), 46 – 55.
305You can also read
